BattleMaster Community
Community => Background => Topic started by: Feylonis on October 24, 2012, 12:23:21 AM
-
Henry VII?
Also, with that statement philosophy, then all religions should declare a crusade against Aurvandil. It's an abhorrence and an insult to all beliefs.
-
Henry VII?
Also, with that statement philosophy, then all religions should declare a crusade against Aurvandil. It's an abhorrence and an insult to all beliefs.
No I don't think so, it was one of the earlier kings, post the Norman invasion.
Well, all religions could declare war on Aurvandil, but on what grounds? Believing their God's are either imaginary, impotent or irrelevant? By that logic all religions should declare war on each other, as they generally tend to disagree on who's God's actually exist or actually matter.
-
To the people arguing over Atheism yes there were atheists in the Medieval era, and there were quite famous and open atheists, including one particular English King who made it clear the religion was his bitch and not the other way around, though I forget the exact king right now.
You're thinking of Henry VIII, who caused the Anglican church to be separated from the Roman Catholic Church. And he wasn't denying God in any way, shape or form: only the Pope.
He still believed in God, feared Him, and worshiped Him.
-
He still believed in God, feared Him, and worshiped Him.
And wrote a !@#$ ton of intensely theological tracts which put him much farther to the right than many modern fundamentalists.
-
You're thinking of Henry VIII, who caused the Anglican church to be separated from the Roman Catholic Church. And he wasn't denying God in any way, shape or form: only the Pope.
He still believed in God, feared Him, and worshiped Him.
He wanted to remarry that badly. What a guy.
-
He wanted to remarry that badly. What a guy.
Imagine what his wife must have been like! ;D
-
Imagine what his wife must have been like! ;D
Yeah! She was the absolute worst kind of wife—the kind who couldn't bear him a male heir!
-
Yeah! She was the absolute worst kind of wife—the kind who couldn't bear him a male heir!
Well, how many chances did he give her?
-
Yeah! She was the absolute worst kind of wife—the kind who couldn't bear him a male heir!
How dare she!
-
Well, how many chances did he give her?
At least five (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII#Early_reign:_1509.E2.80.931525), including one boy dead at seven weeks, one healthy girl, and three miscarriages before she was past childbearing age.
-
At least five (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII#Early_reign:_1509.E2.80.931525), including one boy dead at seven weeks, one healthy girl, and three miscarriages before she was past childbearing age.
Well at least she kept her head unlike the next four or five...
-
You're thinking of Henry VIII, who caused the Anglican church to be separated from the Roman Catholic Church. And he wasn't denying God in any way, shape or form: only the Pope.
He still believed in God, feared Him, and worshiped Him.
No I'm not, I know about the protestant reformation, it's one of the fundamental things we learn when we learn the history of our country. I mean a king before Henry VIII by quite a bit, a few hundred years I think.
-
No I'm not, I know about the protestant reformation, it's one of the fundamental things we learn when we learn the history of our country. I mean a king before Henry VIII by quite a bit, a few hundred years I think.
John Lackland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_John_of_England#Personal_life
John's lack of religious conviction has been noted by contemporary chroniclers and later historians, with some suspecting that John was at best impious, or even atheistic, a very serious issue at the time.[131] Contemporary chroniclers catalogued his various anti-religious habits at length, including his failure to take communion, his blasphemous remarks, and his witty but scandalous jokes about church doctrine, including jokes about the implausibility of the Resurrection. They commented on the paucity of John's charitable donations to the church.[132] Historian Frank McLynn argues that John's early years at Fontevrault, combined with his relatively advanced education, may have turned him against the church.[18] Other historians have been more cautious in interpreting this material, noting that chroniclers also reported John's personal interest in the life of St Wulfstan of Worcester and his friendships with several senior clerics, most especially with Hugh of Lincoln, who was later declared a saint.[133] Financial records show a normal royal household engaged in the usual feasts and pious observances – albeit with many records showing John's offerings to the poor to atone for routinely breaking church rules and guidance.[134]
-
Worth noting also that much of Lackland's negative press about his faith came from political supporters of a biggish baronial revolt that cropped up under his reign.
-
He wanted to remarry that badly. What a guy.
Eh, that was part of the reason, certainly, but a large part was that he wanted the Church's money for himself.
-
He had to replenish what he spent on food somehow. >.>
-
The trouble with looking at Kings for this question is that they had political interests at odds with the Church. Henry II, for example, didn't care for the church ("would someone rid me of this troublesome priest") and may have been 'effectively' an atheist in that capacity -- probably one reason why his son, John Lackland, is noted as having similar views. But it is still quite a leap from "the King opposed Church power" to "the King was an atheist." From a philosophical viewpoint it is correct to generalize that Atheism did not exist in the middle ages.
It isn't that people just accepted what the Church told them. What did exist was heresy, and tons of it. You could throw a rock and find someone who technically did not subscribe to a number of proper doctrinal views and you don't have to go to the Renaissance or the Reformation to find it (just to find any movements that really stuck around -- thank you, printing press...)
The modern atheist, the late Christopher Hitchens, phrased this in a manner appropriate for the middle ages: it's not that there is atheism per se, but there is certainly anti-theism. People who wanted the church out of their lives or at least in a back seat. But a noble who came right out and said "there is nothing divine" or anything to that effect would probably be seized and set on fire, probably in that order.
Atheism as a coherent philosophical movement started with ancient Greeks but was dormant for a couple thousand years and didn't really emerge until the Enlightenment. The reformation and Henry VIII can't really be considered atheistic - just (again) anti-theistic in that they opposed the institution of the Catholic Church.
-
The reformation and Henry VIII can't really be considered atheistic - just (again) anti-theistic in that they opposed the institution of the Catholic Church.
Errm... Martin Luther ain't anti-theistic. Nor Henry VIII. Anti-clerical maybe. But not anti-theistic.
-
Fun little fact,
In ancient Rome, before it became christian, Christians were considered Atheists as they did not believe in proper gods.